Catch-all Fascism?

Since the origin of fascist movements in Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy it has become a custom fro historians to simply label the ideology of governance as right-wing totalitarianism opposite the force of communism, commonly viewed as the Left's own version of top-down control. Though many are happy to simply agree to this, there is reason to suggest that this general consensus needs to be more totally fleshed out.

(Image credit goes to www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org)

This is because labeling fascism as necessarily right-wing also demands the notion that the fascist dictatorships which endured so long without much opposition internally were not supported by at least a majority of the country's population. Both Augusto Pinochet and Francisco Franco could well be viewed as conservatives, yet their governments were largely powerless outside of the nation's confines, requiring focus almost exclusively on domestic policies due to a limited support base. The fact that strict ideologues have such a difficult time keeping control better gives them the association with authoritarianism, a style that desperately needs strong policing to prosper for more than a few years.

When history is taken into account, fascism would best be described as a populist, centrist, or generalist movement that has never truly been opposed by a simple majority of citizens underneath its government of operation. Mussolini is often attacked for his supposed anti-leftist policies, but in reality he held the support of numerous labor unions and implemented the establishment of public corporations to consolidate political power. Hitler was not very different, with the Nazis openly promoting socialism and expanding government services to accommodate even the poorest of citizenry.

Perhaps the best explanation for why fascism is at its core a populist movement is that most people under its girdle asked for its all-encompassing implementation. Mussolini's rise may seem anti-democratic in the eyes of today's scholars, but it was not so far removed from the Roman Empire's system of totalitarian monarchs dating back to the glory ages of previous decades. The National Fascists also offered order in a country torn by cultural divisions and a hate for a democratic voting system -- an emotion that translates into the lackluster turnouts of the present day. Even Hitler was hardly a loathed figure when he came to power, as he promised and delivered on restoring the country's economy for all Germans -- radical socialists and laborers included.

As far as the supposed international opposition to fascism, evidence would suggest to the contrary. Mussolini's policies of equality were immensely popular among Italian Jews during the early days of his rule, and across the English Channel even the heroic Winston Churchill looked to the Duce as a potential ally in the post World War anti-communist movement.

So is fascism of one strict ideology, or a melting pot of different beliefs? The conclusion is up for grabs.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

A Democratic (Fascist) Party

(Ted Daniels is a good friend of the National Alliance research team, yet his views in this article are not necessarily those of the foundation. We sincerely appreciate his contribution however).

One has to admit; the Democratic-labor alliance is great at publicity, with recent protests managing to draw the attention of the doting news outlets and a massive movement in front of the Hall of States in Washington D.C. which demonstrated the full extent of the SEIU's ability to conjure up support against the movement to stabilize state budgets with generally moderate reform in collective bargaining rights and pension contributions. While their expertise with public relations is no doubt brilliant, the masses of signs painting Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin as Adolf Hitler seem ironic considering how in-step their activism is with he former Nazi leader's governmental system.

(Photo credit goes to Life.com)

As the nation now better understands, 14 Democratic senators from Wisconsin chose to leave the state in order to prevent quorum for the passage of a union reform bill aimed at cutting down the 3 billion dollar shortfall which the former governor of their own partner left when his term expired last month. According to the Democrats, these childish actions represent a stand for Wisconsin families and worker's rights, but their argument misses a critical point: it bashes democracy.

Perhaps we have become all too accustomed to politicians breaking their promises, yet Governor Walker is an example of a man striving to maintain his commitment. Last fall he won a simple majority with 52% of the vote, promising throughout the campaign to implement the standing reform, and the voters of the state agreed. Walker, who has been mocked for not completing college due to family ties is simply keeping his promise, no matter the obvious negatives it holds for him politically.

Wisconsin budget proposals reveal senator salaries of just below $50,000 annually, hardly a pittance compared to the pro bono status of legislators in neighboring provinces, yet the Democrats still feel justified in hiding out in Illinois to prevent the vote--all while taking in the lucrative aforementioned funds. At the very least, they should relinquish their salaries or resign the senate; holding back simply roles them into our next category: haters of democracy.

Republicans did not always agree with the Democrats during the tenure of Governor Jim Doyle and his bicameral majorities, yet never once did they prevent quorum from materializing, as this directly contradicts democracy. When dictators come to power, they silence the voices of those who oppose them and rule without limitations. Although the leftists may feel a tingle of glee at the thought of bolstering union power, their backing of these fleeing public servants is an endorsement of arbitrary rule by one voice rather than through the forces of transparency and open debate. In leaving their responsibilities out of disagreement, the party is preventing the minority's voice from being heard and simultaneously promoting a fascist state without good cause. Their responsibility as elected leaders is to represent the smaller group in the capitol, not leave them without voice due to interest group concerns.

Regardless of how the leftist machine may whitewash these protests by the officials, the Democratic Party and gone too far in it supporting the undermining of hundreds of years of American democracy. These are actions similar to those by men who shake the fascistic flag, hoping to silence any view or dissidence which is not in line with their own beliefs. As liberals and conservatives, it is up to us as Americans who love freedom to reject this political perversion before it manifests in higher chambers of power.



Ted Daniels

Writer, Movement for American Federalism Blog